Keya Vaid1, Sheila Mehra2, Mita Verma2, Sandhya Jain3, Abha Sharma4, Sruti Bhaskaran1. 1. Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital , Delhi, India . 2. Senior Consultant, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Moolchand Medcity , Delhi, India . 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital , Delhi, India . 4. Specialist, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GTB Hospital , Delhi, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tuboperitoneal pathology is responsible for 40-50% cases of infertility. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) & laparoscopy are the two classic methods available for evaluation of tubal pathology and are complementary to each other. Though pelvic sonography and HSG are good enough to exclude gross intrauterine pathology, but subtle changes in the form of small polyps, adhesions and seedling fibroid are better picked up on magnification with hysteroscopy. Combined hysterolaparoscopy may obviate need for HSG, as complete evaluation and treatment is possible in the same sitting. AIM: To assess the utility of Hysterolaparoscopy as one step procedure and compare it with HSG, in the subset of ovulatory infertile women with normal pelvic sonography / seminogram /hormonal assays. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In this analytical prospective study, 193 infertile women aged 19 to 42 years underwent HSG and Hysterolaparoscopy over a period of six months. They were confirmed to have ovulatory cycles and normal seminogram. Patient with active genital infection were excluded. Findings were categorized as normal/abnormal and therapeutic intervention done, if required. Statistical evaluation was carried out using Chi- square test. RESULT: On comparing HSG and Hysteroscopy, uterine findings matched in 66.3% patients. HSG failed to detect uterine pathology in 32.12% patients (62/193) with a sensitivity of 21.3% and specificity of 97.45%. Ninety three percent of intrauterine adhesions/polyps were missed on HSG. Hysteroscopic intervention was required in 23.83% cases, adhesiolysis being the commonest. On comparing tubal patency on HSG and laparoscopy, the sensitivity of HSG in detecting bilateral tubal block was 80.6% and specificity of 81.5%. With regard to unilateral tubal block, sensitivity was 34.6% and specificity 89.8%. The agreement between the two was 74%. Pathology such as adhesions, fimbrial agglutination and endometriosis were dealt surgically in 65.8% patients. As per HSG, 112/193 women had both tubes patent and 177 revealed normal uterine cavity. When these 112 women (58.03%) with normal HSG report were further subjected to hysterolaparoscopy, only 35/193 (18.13%) of them actually had normal tubes and uterus; rest 77 women (39.89%) were benefited by one step procedure of hysterolaparoscopic evaluation and intervention and further treatment done. CONCLUSION: Hysterolaparoscopy (Pan Endoscopic) approach is better than HSG and should be encouraged as first and final procedure in selected infertile women.
INTRODUCTION: Tuboperitoneal pathology is responsible for 40-50% cases of infertility. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) & laparoscopy are the two classic methods available for evaluation of tubal pathology and are complementary to each other. Though pelvic sonography and HSG are good enough to exclude gross intrauterine pathology, but subtle changes in the form of small polyps, adhesions and seedling fibroid are better picked up on magnification with hysteroscopy. Combined hysterolaparoscopy may obviate need for HSG, as complete evaluation and treatment is possible in the same sitting. AIM: To assess the utility of Hysterolaparoscopy as one step procedure and compare it with HSG, in the subset of ovulatory infertile women with normal pelvic sonography / seminogram /hormonal assays. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In this analytical prospective study, 193 infertile women aged 19 to 42 years underwent HSG and Hysterolaparoscopy over a period of six months. They were confirmed to have ovulatory cycles and normal seminogram. Patient with active genital infection were excluded. Findings were categorized as normal/abnormal and therapeutic intervention done, if required. Statistical evaluation was carried out using Chi- square test. RESULT: On comparing HSG and Hysteroscopy, uterine findings matched in 66.3% patients. HSG failed to detect uterine pathology in 32.12% patients (62/193) with a sensitivity of 21.3% and specificity of 97.45%. Ninety three percent of intrauterine adhesions/polyps were missed on HSG. Hysteroscopic intervention was required in 23.83% cases, adhesiolysis being the commonest. On comparing tubal patency on HSG and laparoscopy, the sensitivity of HSG in detecting bilateral tubal block was 80.6% and specificity of 81.5%. With regard to unilateral tubal block, sensitivity was 34.6% and specificity 89.8%. The agreement between the two was 74%. Pathology such as adhesions, fimbrial agglutination and endometriosis were dealt surgically in 65.8% patients. As per HSG, 112/193 women had both tubes patent and 177 revealed normal uterine cavity. When these 112 women (58.03%) with normal HSG report were further subjected to hysterolaparoscopy, only 35/193 (18.13%) of them actually had normal tubes and uterus; rest 77 women (39.89%) were benefited by one step procedure of hysterolaparoscopic evaluation and intervention and further treatment done. CONCLUSION: Hysterolaparoscopy (Pan Endoscopic) approach is better than HSG and should be encouraged as first and final procedure in selected infertile women.
Authors: Emeka Philip Igbodike; Olusegun Olalekan Badejoko; Olusola Benjamin Fasubaa; Bolanle Olubunmi Ibitoye; Olabisi Morebise Loto; Joseph Ifeanyichukwu Ikechebelu; George Uchenna Eleje; Arinze Anthony Onwuegbuna; Boniface Chukwuneme Okpala; Osita Samuel Umeononihu; Onyecherelam Monday Ogelle Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2022-06-13